[sceptic]

Hi Whilst watching USA1 and SA

I noticed the following chat about Michaels cue bid and that the concept of not bidding it with intermediate strength is dissapering and that shape showing seemed to be paramount to some of the star commentators.

Can you voice your own opinions please as to the merits of these statements

Thanks

Just oe comment from one of the aussies

Yes, split-strength Michaels is a foolish concept

[Cascade]

I have played a continuous range Michaels for many years. Occasionally I play with a partner who insists on a split range. I much prefer the continuous range.

Our range is loosely always constructive. Nominally a hand with around 10 hcp concentrated in the two suits is suitable.

AJxxx
AJxxx
xx
x

Vulnerable we might like a little more. Favourable we might bid with a little less. If we have to go to the three-level then a little more. The usual sort of adjustments.

Michaels with weak hands seems to me to have few benefits. Occasionally you will find a good sacrifice but much more often you will be outbid and give declarer a blue-print on how to play the hand. And if you do not have a fit you may have offered the opponents a lucrative penalty.

[Codo]

So wayn e plays it limited too: its intermed. or better.

For me it is too hard to bid the hand if Michaels is not limited.
I can see the downside of the "blueprint", so I do not use it any more with most weak 5-5 hands, but just with hands where I surely want to defend- extra length and or very pure suits (QJTxxx,JT9xx f.e.)

But if the Aussies or other can give me a good scheme how to continue after an unlimited Michaels, I am open to listen and learn.

[ArtK78]

For many years, all that I heard was "We play Michaels either strong or weak - no intermediate hands."

Now, all I hear is "Shape is all that matters. Get into the auction with shape, regardless of strength."

These comments come from the same players who shift their styles over time. The current view is to make two suited bids with shape whether strong, intermediate or weak. As to the merit of this position over the prior position, both have good points and bad points. But with the nature of bidding today, one must get all of one's suits into play as soon as possible. If you have an intermediate hand and overcall one suit, you may find that you are faced with a decision at a high level whether to introduce your second suit.

[kenrexford]

For what it is worth, I have not been all that impressed with the standard response structure to Michaels for some time. I think that this does need re-vamping.

I dabbled with:

After majors, flags; 2NT natural
After major-minor; 2NT natural, 3C pass-or-correct; 3D flag for major; 3Q flag for minor.

This seemed to work a tad better. You get more description and more cooperation from partner, at the loss of ability to convert to the other minor, which is rare anyway.

[keylime]

It seems to me that on the West Coast that there is not the split range that East Coast players use for Michaels (and other 2 suiters).

I prefer my 2 suiters to be constructive and thusly the weak variants are tossed; likewise I also like knowing the 2 suits to compete.

[barmar]

I think either (or both) Ron Klinger's "The Power of Shape" or some Michael Lawrence books recommend using Michaels and Unusual 2NT for all strengths.

The theory behind not using it for intermediate hands was that you would be able to bid the two suits naturally. However, if you have a distributional hand, there's a good chance the opponents do as well, so the auction may reach an uncomfortable level by your next chance to bid. If you can describe the shape of your hand in one bid, partner is in a better shape to compete.

[vang]

barmar, on Oct 10 2007, 08:51 PM, said:

I think either (or both) Ron Klinger's "The Power of Shape" or some Michael Lawrence books recommend using Michaels and Unusual 2NT for all strengths.

The theory behind not using it for intermediate hands was that you would be able to bid the two suits naturally. However, if you have a distributional hand, there's a good chance the opponents do as well, so the auction may reach an uncomfortable level by your next chance to bid. If you can describe the shape of your hand in one bid, partner is in a better shape to compete.

also marshall miles in 'competitive bidding for 21 century'.

[helene_t]

Agree that two-suit-showing bids should be constructive. This is especially the case for bids that show two specific suits and/or when we don't have spades.

[3for3]

Add my voice to the continuous range. It is just so much more likely the opponents will have preempted you out of your second suit in modern bridge.

Also, when you do bid out, partner knows you have an extra card in the first suit. This could be crucial if you are say 6/5 and partner is 2/3. You will play the 6-2 fit, which will be far easier to control then than the 5-3, with the taps coming in the long hand.

Danny